Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection

1
Franklin v. Howard Brown Health Ctr., No. 17 C 8376 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2018)
2
In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2656, Misc. No. 15-1404 (D.D.C., 2018)
3
Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser International Inc., No. 16-cv-2032-CM-TJJ (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2018)
4
Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc (8th Circuit Appellate Court, 2018)
5
Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-0298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2018)
6
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018)
7
Satmodo, LLC v. Whenever Communications, LLC, 3:17-cv-192-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal. July 20, 2018)
8
Shannon v. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies, LLC, No. 14-CV-00787 (W.D. Mo. July 20, 2018)
9
Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat (Minnesota District, 2018)
10
Mitchell v. Savannah Airport Commission (Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, 2018)

Franklin v. Howard Brown Health Ctr., No. 17 C 8376 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2018)

Key Insight: ineffective litigation hold, failure to preserve electronic evidence

Nature of Case: workplace harassment and discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: emails, text messages, instant messages

Keywords: instant messages, faulty and failed litigation hold, the defendant “bollixed its litigation hold”

View Case Opinion

In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2656, Misc. No. 15-1404 (D.D.C., 2018)

Key Insight: Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, unforeseen or unanticipated matters.

Nature of Case: unlawful restraint of trade class action

Electronic Data Involved: 3.5 million predominantly non-responsive documents produced by defendant, predictive coding.

Keywords: deficient TAR process, 3.5 million documents, predictive coding, preposterous, glitch.

Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc (8th Circuit Appellate Court, 2018)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was sanctioned for re-litigating issues, ignoring court orders and insisting on overbroad scope of discovery

Nature of Case: products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Documents generally

Keywords: sanctions, scope of discovery, disregarding court orders

View Case Opinion

Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-0298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2018)

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to preserve and produce ESI responsive to plantiffs’ discovery requests.

Nature of Case: unpaid wages and overtime claims collective action

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records, undecipherable codes, mobile device data, text messages

Keywords: adverse inference instruction, unintelligible, mockery of the orderly administration of justice

View Case Opinion

In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018)

Key Insight: Undue burden or cost of discovery alleged by defendant.

Nature of Case: antitrust class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI searches upon 12 custodians

Keywords: Has not made a threshold showing, does not satisfy the rule 26(b)(2)(C) factors.

View Case Opinion

Shannon v. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies, LLC, No. 14-CV-00787 (W.D. Mo. July 20, 2018)

Key Insight: search terms, proportionality

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: electronic records

Keywords: search terms, boolean connectors

View Case Opinion

Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat (Minnesota District, 2018)

Key Insight: After later learning the theory recovering lost profits is based on, parties must rely on documents produced during discovery

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents

Keywords: recovering lost profits, inexorable-flow theory damages, scope of discovery

View Case Opinion

Mitchell v. Savannah Airport Commission (Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, 2018)

Key Insight: Lack of communication regarding extending discovery timeline doesn’t entitle a party to additional time

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Documents

Keywords: discovery timeline, reopening discovery, lack of communication, radio silence

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.